> > XXX: should these pmf(9) calls be moved into MI attach functions > > XXX: using function pointers for suspend and resume passed via softc? > > I think that we would add callbacks to many, many softc's, like we did > with the enable/disable routines. Lots of code would be duplicated. I > am gradually replacing those routines with self-suspension. PMF should > handle bus-independent/bus-dependent suspend/resume, too. > > Let the programmer of drivers add a bus-dependent PMF hook in the bus > attachment routine, and a bus-independent PMF hook in the generic attach > routine. Something like this, for example,
Hmm, is multiple pmf_device_register*(9) calls against the same device_t allowed? How should they be de-registered? One problem is that suspend and resume functions are often bus dependent but most shutdown (and pmf_class_*()) functions are bus independent. If multiple registration is allowed, it might be better to have pmf_device_register_shutdown() or so. --- Izumi Tsutsui
